Marching inexorably towards the final goal. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts.

 

Marching inexorably towards the final goal. Decisive prismatic experiments that will settle the matter. Part 2

Let us think for a while about what is seen in this objective experiment. At 1 we see the subjective spectrum, in which B appears towards the apex of the prism and R towards the base. At 2 there is a colourless image of the aperture of the source of light. At 3 we see the objective spectrum, in which B has apparently been deflected towards the base of the prism and R towards the apex. Do you agree with my assessment? Probably not. Most likely because you could not see how in the objective display R could have been refracted in a direction towards the apex of the prism. But the reality is that R can be refracted towards the apex of the prism. In fact, none other than Newton himself did it for the first time, and since then many others have routinely continued to do it to this day. The 'secret' is to place the prism in a position of minimum deviation relative to the G component of the white light. See the diagram below.

The purist would be quick to argue that choosing to set up a prism at minimum deviation relative to G does not entitle one to claim that R and B are refracted in opposite directions in objective experiments. To that I'll reply by asking the purist to wait until the end of this post to bring that argument into discussion, for I'm willing to bet the two-dollar coin that I have in my pocket that by then he may be having serious second thoughts about its validity.

Before going any further I'd like to show you a couple of pictures I took when I conducted an objective experiment in which I used three laser pointers (V, G and R) to pass through a prism placed in a position of minimum deviation relative to G. See below.

The first thing that I learned from the Universe, about the Universe, was that the most fundamental attribute of being is its dichotomous nature. The lowest universal number is 2. 1 doesn't exist because 1 cannot exist. There are 2 of absolutely everything in this Universe. Most famously, of course, there is an action and there is a reaction. There is a subjective spectrum (VBGYOR) as real as an objective (ROYGBV) one. See below.

I love this picture. For a number of reasons. I love it first because there are 2 of everything in it. Then I love it because I can see a beautiful example that pokes a stick at the fragility of the conventional understanding regarding light and prismatic phenomena. You want me to tell you about it? OK.

A while ago I thought about confronting the conventional physicist with the argument that the so-called inverse spectrum that is seen in the prism should not be deemed to be a subjective observation, but truly an objective one, as it happens. That's because I, as an observer, do not interfere with it in any shape or form. In fact, I don't even look at it. The only information that I extract from the entire picture is solely from my looking at the image of that subjective spectrum, which is cast on the same screen from which you obtain your information. This little fact should suddenly render us, both, objective observers. 

Newton believed that there is only one difference between the subjective observations and the objective ones. In his theory of light and colours he mentions that difference: “Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the paper.” Disappointingly though he never dedicated any time to trying to elucidate why that was the only observable difference between the two kinds of prismatic observations.  Unlike Newton, over the years we have dedicated considerable time specifically to that subject, for we had reasoned that in it laid the entire story of light, as well as its magical interaction with prismatic objects. 

Right from the beginning we realised that whatever effects were observed in one kind of experimentation, were invariably mirrored in the other. There was always a perfect correlation between any particular observation and its direct counterpart from across the table. We understood early on that whatever was that caused the refraction, was ultimately the magic key that opened all the doors behind which the light was hiding whilst travelling through the prism. We also understood quite early on that whatever the driving force behind refraction was, the bending of colours as Newton imagined was not.

In the end it did not take very long until we managed to figure out what was going on. It turned out that the reason behind the refraction seen in subjective observations (which we had solved first) although quite subtle and beautiful, it wasn't related to any Newtonian concept or attribute. That proved to be then an impossibly difficult product to sell, in a market that has been overwhelmingly dominated by Newtonian ideas for 350 years. To give you a taste of how difficult that task has remained I will next show you a handful of pictures that explain eloquently what exactly the prismatic refraction is, how it is created and why it exists. In turn your job will be to figure out what we are talking about from those pictures only, without any additional explanations. Game? OK, let's go.

I believe that the conventional understanding of light is riddled with baseless and toxic doctrines that have plagued our imperative need to continuously evolve in order not to perish. One of those toxic doctrines states that light, once emitted, will perpetually travel in space without ever experiencing any change in its physical attributes. A photon created here, next to my prism, will travel forever, to the end of the universe, without changing in any shape or form, its colour, its wavelength, its frequency. I categorically refuse to believe that. In fact, according to my understanding, a photon created here, without the backing of an expanding field to push it from behind, will completely dissipate into space well before getting anywhere near your own prism.

Let me show you a picture I took recently of the light field of a LED lamp.

There are very good reasons behind my belief that white light is formed by a spectral formation that lays longitudinally in BGR units. Light is forced, or perhaps guided, into those formations by the particular geometry of the spacetime at any given point in spacetime. For instance, you can't force the red light I marked in the picture above, into the marked area where the blue light is. Or, if you can, it is because by the time the red light is forced into the blue light's area, it is no longer red: it is categorically blue. Space (spacetime) drives, shapes and moulds the light it receives according to the geometrical constraints that are typical to the location. It simply couldn't be any other way of accommodating and propagating a field of light in the most efficient and simple manner that is characteristic to the God Universe.

I read somewhere a few days ago that we, humans, are very good at seeing patterns. That in fact we're better than the best computer programs in the world.

So far, to the best of our knowledge we know that when it comes to our interaction with light there are two phenomena we must consider. One of those two we call refraction. The other we call diffraction. In refraction we observe that the spectral colours appear to be deflected by prismatic objects in a ROYGBV order. In diffraction the spectral colours appear to be deflected by obstructive objects in inverse order. VBGYOR.

In refraction we know that light reveals its colours in two ways. One of those we call subjective observation. The other we call objective observation. In a subjective observation we know that the spectrum of light comes in a VBGYOR order. In an objective one the spectrum is displayed in inverse order. ROYGBV. 

According to the reigning theory there is no underlaying pattern behind these observations. According to my understanding, on the other hand, there is. That light exists in a VBGYOR

 

Marching inexorably towards the final goal. The decisive prismatic experiments that will settle the matter. Part 1

There are two kinds of prismatic experiments: objective and subjective. Our entire understanding of light and colours is fully and unconditionally dependent and defined by those two kinds of experiments. This year marks exactly 350 years since Newton’s “...letter containing his new theory about light and colours” was published in the Philosophical Transactions, which is the event that introduced the Newtonian view of optics to the world, and which has remained ever since the mainstream theoretical understanding of all related phenomena.

In spite of all the opposition that Newton’s theory has faced in its 350-year reign there is not a single thing that has had any significant effect upon the mainstream establishment, and that basically means that, conventionally, we believe that Newton’s theory is as valid in 2022 as it was in 1672. Now, this 350-year-old status quo may be deemed unjust by many today (especially by those who believe that Goethe’s body of work is categorically worthy of an objective assessment and consideration). But the reality is that no decisive and irrefutable evidence has been brought forth as a truly viable alternative to the Newtonian view. Until today. 

We have good reasons to believe that there is a decisive, conclusive, direct and simple way to find out once and for all if the Newtonian theory of light and colours is indeed the definitive descriptor of optical phenomena. This is the main objective of this post. In that quest we will present a number of simple prismatic experiments that will comprehensively test both Newton’s and Goethe’s theories, and ultimately unambiguously determine which, if either, is correct in their respective claims. The experiments that we'll present will address both objective and subjective observations, leaving in the process no room for any doubt about which (if either) of the two theories is a better descriptor of the optical phenomena.

The first experiment we’ll present consists of a subjective prismatic observation of a white rectangle placed upon a black background. (Figure 1)

What the observer will see upon conducting a subjective observation of the white rectangle in Figure 1 is thought to be well known and fully accounted by Newton’s theory. The reality, however, is totally different to the conventional belief, as you will see in a few moments. To that end, let us first present you with the image that the observer will see upon looking at the white rectangle through a triangular prism (prism oriented with its apex pointing to the left) from a distance of about 0.5m. (See Figure 2)

The two figures above contain everything we need to comprehensively determine which (if any) of the two competing theories can correctly account for the result of our experiment.

A Newtonian account of the image above would begin with-and from-the argument that the rectangle under observation appears white to the naked eye because the named rectangle is actually formed by an infinity of superposed rectangles of all spectral colours. This argument will then be followed thus. When that apparently white rectangle is passing through a prism in its way to the observer’s eye, all those infinite superposed rectangles of different colours will be refracted (in the same direction, toward the prism’s apex) by precise and unique amounts for each individual colour. Thus, if we take as an example only those four coloured bands that are flanking the white rectangle, the R rectangle is refracted the least (toward the apex of the prism), the Y one a little more than the R, the C rectangle a little more than the Y one, with the B rectangle being refracted the most. Finally, the Newtonian account would say that the reason that only four colours are visible through the prism is due to the fact that only those colours are not superposed with any of the other myriad of rectangular spectral hues, with the reason for the white display in the middle being the result of all that infinity of colours being once again superposed upon each other over that particular area of the image.

A Goethean account, on the other hand, would argue that the reason for the image depicted in Figure 2, is simply due to the fact that an observation through a prism of the white rectangle will basically create a double image of the original rectangle. Specifically, Goethe says that a prism refracts (or deflects) the entire image of the object under observation in a direction toward the apex of the prism, and the reason for those four visible colours is due to the fact that in one instance we look at the original white rectangle through a turbid medium (the prism), whilst in the other we look at the dark background that surrounds the original white rectangle, through a turbid medium (the prism) that contains a white copy of the original rectangle.

In examining the process of the experiment just given, we find that in the one case we have, to appearance, extended the white edge upon the dark surface; in the other we have extended the dark edge upon the white surface, supplanting one by the other, pushing one over the other. (Paragraph 203 from Goethe's Theory of colour.)

The time has come to answer now whose theory can better account for the results of our experiment. First, though, let us state in advance that the answer to that question is both definitive and categorical. Now, the answer is… neither. Let us show you next why that is the case.

Incredibly, the reality is that neither Newton nor Goethe (nor anybody else, for that matter) seem to have realised that in order to make sure that one’s theory could correctly account for all prismatic observations, one must, before anything else, ensure that the position of any object under observation is precisely determined and known at all times and from all relevant perspectives. Otherwise, how could the experimenter, or the observer, determine to what extent and in which directions does a prism refracts (or deflects) any component of whatever the object of observation may be?

There are many ways of doing that. For instance, in our case the rectangle is placed right at the centre of the picture, and therefore any refraction would change those coordinates. We choose to employ another way, however, in which we place a green line along each side of the white rectangle. (See Figure 3) Green because objects of that colour are not deflected at all by a prism.

Next, we’ll look through our prism at the marked rectangle and thus find that the green lines are right on the borders between the R band and the Y one, and the C band and the B one, respectively. (See Figure 4) Thus we know exactly where the white rectangle is, which in turn means that we can now determine which-if any-of the two theories is correct.

First, Goethe’s theory fails in that quest because if it were correct the G line on the right side would have been laying on the border between the R band and the black background, and the other one would have marked the border between the C band and the white rectangular area at the centre of the image. (See Figure 5)

Second, the Newtonian understanding fails because in that case one of the G lines should be seen laying a little to the right of the R band and the other one a little to the right of the C band. (See Figure 6)

Now, if we examine carefully the image in Figure 4 we have no choice but to accept that the R rectangle has been refracted (deflected) in a direction toward the base of the prism. Needless to say, this is an extremely inconvenient fact, for it flies straight in the face of Newton’s theory. (And Goethe’s, as we know.) Nonetheless, the reality is that (at least) in subjective experiments R and B refract in opposite directions—with R towards the base of the prism and B towards its apex. And that’s not all, either. To that most inconvenient fact we also have to add the reality that G does not refract at all in a prism. (We’ll show that in a moment.) And if all those things weren’t enough, let us finally close this topic by stating that it is not only G that defies the conventional theory by refusing to refract in a prism: neither C nor Y do it, either.

It is easy to prove everything stated in the paragraph above, as you will see from the demonstrations below. First, we shall prove that R and B are refracted by a prism exactly as we have said. At the same time, we shall also prove the G is not refracted at all by a prism. 

In Figure 7 we have an image of the white rectangle we have used in all our experiments thus far. Right under that white rectangle there are three other rectangles of the same width, but of different height (for convenience) coloured R, G, and B. Those three rectangles are all the superposed colours that are (in our understanding) needed, in order to account for all prismatic observations. If we now conduct a subjective observation of the image in Figure 7 (with the prism oriented as before—apex to the left—from a distance of about 0.5 m) we shall be confronted by an image like that shown in Figure 8. (Some typical prismatic artefacts are not shown.)

As you can see, the results of this experiment are categorical. The R rectangle has been deflected towards the base of the prism by an amount equal to the width of the C band. At the other end of the spectrum the B rectangle has been deflected in the opposite direction, towards the apex, by an amount equal to the width of the Y band. Finally, in the middle of the spectrum, the G rectangle has not been deflected at all from its original position. Just as I said. 

There is no doubt that the refraction of the spectral colours in subjective observations does not happen as Newton and Goethe had imagined. The subjective refraction in a prism is not seen to happen in the same direction for all spectral colours, as both Newton and Goethe believed. It happens, instead, in opposite directions for the boundary colours and not at all for the central hue. 

It had become manifest the fact that in subjective experiments a prism refracts the spectral colours in the same fashion as when one opens a Fan with one's hand: from the centre towards the sides, in both directions at the same time. To my mind that made perfect sense. It was a far more efficient process. It was more beautiful, simpler, faster. 

In spite of all those revelations one thing continued, nevertheless, to haunt me long after completing my work in that particular matter. The thing that haunted me came in the form of one simple question: Why should those wonderful facts that I had discovered be factors of manifestation only in subjective experiments? Isn’t God the true epitome of parsimoniousness? Why would He then have such simplicity in one aspect of reality, yet so convoluted a story in its mirror counterpart? It was time to look deeper into the nature of objective experiments.

Subjective and objective spectra created in the same experiment